topcougar Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 It is ironic that they want to lift the privilege of clergy but not of lawyers or mental health professionals. 1
smac97 Posted February 4, 2020 Author Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) On 1/30/2020 at 7:35 PM, Tacenda said: Two in one day.. https://kutv.com/news/local/ag-utah-man-in-position-of-trust-admits-to-raping-babies-children-women-for-decades I don't know what they mean by "position of special trust", but he did serve a mission and attend BYU. This seems like a massive non sequitur. What does his previous missionary service or attendance at BYU have to do with the purported misconduct? Quote This is one of the worst cases of child sexual abuse. Watched my grandbaby girl today, and I can't stomach that this man did what he did to a baby. Over and over I say how I'd kill anyone that would touch her, and I would. In fact my anger, has me wanting to get to this sick P.O.S and doing harm. NORTH SALT LAKE, Utah (KUTV) — A man who held "a position of special trust" over his victims has admitted to abusing several children, some as young as one, and two adult women for decades beginning in 1992, the Utah Attorney General's Office says. How is this story relevant to the priest/penitent privilege? Per the "Probable Cause" statement from the police (contained in the legal paperwork), Mr. Olson abused the infant victims while changing their diapers, and abused young and teenage children while they were sleeping, and abused teens by plying them with alcohol and medication, and by abusing two adult victims while sthey were asleep. There were six minor and two adult victims. All female. The abuse took place more or less sequentially. Victim 1 was abused from 1995 to 1999, Victim 2 from 1998 to 2002, Victim 3 from 2003 to 2008, Victims 4, 5, and 6 in 2011. An adult victim (over 14 years old) was abused from from 2015 to 2017, and another adult victim 1992 to 2007. These are horrible things, to be sure. I hope Mr. Olson, if convicted, is punished according to the law. However, I am not sure what they have to do with the priest/penitent privilege. Also, it appears that Mr. Olson may have confessed to the police in the first instance. That is, the police were able to uncover the abuse because Mr. Olson voluntarily confessed to it. If so, is it possible that this came about because Mr. Olson confessed to his bishop, who then encouraged him to report himself to the police? We can't really say what happened in this case, as we don't have sufficient facts. However, we have pretty good evidence that bishops frequently play a major positive role in detecting and stopping abuse, and also in having perpetrators stop the abuse, move out, report themselves to law enforcement, etc. A significant part of why bishops are situated to facilitate such things is . . . the priest/penitent privilege. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 4, 2020 by smac97 2
Calm Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Do all of your posts always belong in threads? My comments aren't always, because I'm unable to start topics, so I'm sorry if I do it too much. It is more of whether they belong on this board, which doesn’t not have as one of its topics all cases of sexual abuse in Utah. The second case...not seeing ties to the Church, was it reported elsewhere? The position of trust included bathing and changing diapers, so not likely a church calling.
smac97 Posted February 4, 2020 Author Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Calm said: The second case...not seeing ties to the Church, was it reported elsewhere? The position of trust included bathing and changing diapers, so not likely a church calling. Well, he served a mission and went to BYU. Hence he is probably a member of the Church. Hence the Church is, somehow, to be blamed for his misconduct. Is that your point, Tacenda? If not, then why did you post this story here, and specifically call out his relationship to the Church? Here's a thought exercise for you. Let's slightly re-word your post: I don't know what they mean by "position of special trust", but he is African-American. This is one of the worst cases of child sexual abuse... I don't know what they mean by "position of special trust", but he is Muslim. This is one of the worst cases of child sexual abuse... I don't know what they mean by "position of special trust", but he is gay. This is one of the worst cases of child sexual abuse... I don't know what they mean by "position of special trust", but he is an atheist. This is one of the worst cases of child sexual abuse... I don't know what they mean by "position of special trust", but he is a hard core leftist. This is one of the worst cases of child sexual abuse... I don't know what they mean by "position of special trust", but he is a staunch Republican. This is one of the worst cases of child sexual abuse... Would you ever say any of these? Would you smear these communities as somehow being collectively responsible for the misconduct of one of their constituent members? I don't think so. But you said it about us. -Smac Edited February 4, 2020 by smac97 2
Tacenda Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, he served a mission and went to BYU. Hence he is probably a member of the Church. Hence the Church is, somehow, to be blamed for his misconduct. Is that your point, Tacenda? If not, then why did you post this story here, and specifically call out his relationship to the Church? -Smac I will indeed need to get to the bottom of this. But 'position of trust' could mean bishop. That is why I posted. Already we've seen bishops doing things that can harm children.
Calm Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Tacenda said: ill indeed need to get to the bottom of this. But 'position of trust' could mean bishop. That is why I posted. Get to the bottom first and then post in the future please. “Position of trust” that is not spelled out likely means imo they don’t want to identify the victim, which would be easy to do if they said stepfather or boyfriend of the mother. Bishops don’t usually change diapers or give baths to kids under their stewardship last I heard. That you went to “bishop” when there are many, many other positions of trust is a strong bias you might want to guard against. Edited February 4, 2020 by Calm 4
smac97 Posted February 4, 2020 Author Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: Quote Well, he served a mission and went to BYU. Hence he is probably a member of the Church. Hence the Church is, somehow, to be blamed for his misconduct. Is that your point, Tacenda? If not, then why did you post this story here, and specifically call out his relationship to the Church? I will indeed need to get to the bottom of this. The bottom of what? How is his membership in the Church relevant to his misconduct? Quote But 'position of trust' could mean bishop. That is why I posted. Already we've seen bishops doing things that can harm children. A bishop changing diapers? Of multiple babies? Over a period of years? A bishop having solitary and regular and years-long access to children, such that he could sexually assault them without getting caught? Holy cow. What a horrible perspective to have on bishops. "He's a child molester in Utah, so he has probably been a Mormon bishop." Is that your perspective? Your wholly unfounded suspicion? It sure seems that way. And again, let's tweak your statement a bit: Already we've seen black men doing things that can harm children. Already we've seen Muslims doing things that can harm children. Already we've seen homosexuals doing things that can harm children. Already we've seen atheists doing things that can harm children. I cannot conceptualize a situation where you would say such things about these other groups. But you said it about Latter-day Saint bishops. -Smac Edited February 4, 2020 by smac97 4
Kenngo1969 Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: Do all of your posts always belong in threads? My comments aren't always, because I'm unable to start topics, so I'm sorry if I do it too much. Frankly, I don't post enough here anymore that you (or anyone else) should worry about it. You can always place me on ignore if you wish.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 4 hours ago, topcougar said: It is ironic that they want to lift the privilege of clergy but not of lawyers or mental health professionals. Yeah. Somehow, the specific mention of religion in the First Amendment is irrelevant, yet neither lawyers, nor doctors, nor mental health professionals are listed anywhere in the Bill of Rights, yet their privileges and communications stemming therefrom would remain undisturbed. I think, perhaps, that tells us everything we need to know about what the drive to eliminate priest-penitent privilege is really about. 4
Tacenda Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 31 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Frankly, I don't post enough here anymore that you (or anyone else) should worry about it. You can always place me on ignore if you wish. Never! I wouldn't do that no how, no way.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 19 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Never! I wouldn't do that no how, no way. Sorry for sniping. I'm not can-I-please-simply-turn-to-dust-and-blow-away-in-the-wind-right-this-very-second depressed, but I am I-don't-really-give-a-damn-about-anything-right-now ... depressed, I guess, is the word.
Calm Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: Sorry for sniping. I'm not can-I-please-simply-turn-to-dust-and-blow-away-in-the-wind-right-this-very-second depressed, but I am I-don't-really-give-a-damn-about-anything-right-now ... depressed, I guess, is the word. I seem to be coming out of it early this year. Cleaned for much of the night and morning and am now crashing. Do you have seasonal affective disorder by chance or is it just the chronic overload of stuff that is life? If the first...we are on the slope down, but February is harsh most years, so no guilt as this is a perq of living in Utah! M...if the latter, I am sorry it is difficult. I hope you get surprised by joy somehow. Edited February 4, 2020 by Calm
mgy401 Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 8 hours ago, smac97 said: This is a terrible story, to be sure. I guess I am wondering, though, if your proposed cure may - in the aggregate - be worse than the disease. In your post you call "for change." I assume the proposed "change" is the elimination of the priest/penitent privilege. Is that correct? What are your thoughts about the other privileges? Do you likewise propose to abolish the attorney/client privilege? The doctor/patient privilege? The spousal privilege? Thanks, -Smac SMAC, it’s worth noting that the referral only tells DCFS that it needs to begin an investigation. The identity of the referent remains private per UCA 62A-4-412(3)(b)—DCFS can log it internally (if the referent chooses to give their name) but can *never* disclose that to anyone, even a prosecutor or a court. So if a court action alleging child abuse or neglect ensues, DCFS will try to build its case through collateral sources/witnesses; and since the referent isn’t testifying the evidentiary rules and statutes on privilege may be of limited application. It may also be worth noting that the Utah rules of evidence specifically exclude child abuse/neglect from the definition of “privileged” information in the context of doctor/patient privilege (advisory committee note to Rule 506) and spousal privilege (Rule 502(e)(3) and -(4)). I don’t believe the question of whether Utah’s reporting statute trumps attorney-client privilege has ever been litigated here, but I know several savvy Utah lawyers who work in this field and who encourage their clients to speak to them “in hypotheticals” just for this reason. I agree with you that Romero’s bill is questionable policy; but the reason she’s uniquely singling out religious leaders is that the state’s current status quo already singles them out in a unique way.
Calm Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, mgy401 said: So if a court action alleging child abuse or neglect ensues, DCFS will try to build its case through collateral sources/witnesses; and since the referent isn’t testifying the evidentiary rules and statutes on privilege may be of limited application. Are you saying there will be no legal way for anyone to learn who the reporter was? If from a confession, the police won’t be interrogating by saying “you confessed to your bishop you did x, y, and z”, but just saying “we have evidence that you were abusive/neglectful”. Any details would be from the investigation, not the report? Edited February 5, 2020 by Calm
Calm Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, mgy401 said: state’s current status quo already singles them out in a unique way. Because of the large presence of Saints in the state and their over representation percentage wise in the government or are you talking about something else?
mgy401 Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 21 minutes ago, Calm said: Are you saying there will be no legal way for anyone to learn who the reporter was? If from a confession, the police won’t be interrogating by saying “you confessed to your bishop you did x, y, and z”, but just saying “we have evidence that you were abusive/neglectful”. Any details would be from the investigation, not the report? Right. DCFS could also reach out to the victim’s parents, arrange a Children’s Justice Center interview, and so on. But they can’t “out” the referent.
mgy401 Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 20 minutes ago, Calm said: Because of the large presence of Saints in the state and their over representation percentage wise in the government or are you talking about something else? No, because the current reporting statute provides an explicit exception for clergy and *only* clergy—not spouses, not doctors, and not lawyers.
Calm Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 22 minutes ago, mgy401 said: No, because the current reporting statute provides an explicit exception for clergy and *only* clergy—not spouses, not doctors, and not lawyers. Thank you for clarifying. That is a significantly different view. Still think there is a benefit for confession to pastors as most would encourage to get help, would also see spouse and doctors at this point in same category as likely to do the same. Not so much lawyers as they may be concerned if that info gets out...if they are thinking solely in terms of legal costs/benefits.
2BizE Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 I’m supportive of this bill. Too many child abusers hiding behind clergy.
mgy401 Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 3 hours ago, Calm said: Thank you for clarifying. That is a significantly different view. Still think there is a benefit for confession to pastors as most would encourage to get help, would also see spouse and doctors at this point in same category as likely to do the same. Not so much lawyers as they may be concerned if that info gets out...if they are thinking solely in terms of legal costs/benefits. I agree.
MiserereNobis Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 1 hour ago, 2BizE said: I’m supportive of this bill. Too many child abusers hiding behind clergy. Can you address the arguments given in this thread why the bill is bad? 2
2BizE Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 57 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Can you address the arguments given in this thread why the bill is bad? I haven’t read most of the arguments yet, so I’m not opposed to any. I’m simply stating my opinion. What in my opinion suggested I was against any arguments?
Kenngo1969 Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 11 hours ago, Tacenda said: Tacenda, can you edit your post to remove USU78's phone number, please? We've already been in contact, and I don't want him to have to bother with any of the adverse consequences that might result from sharing personal IRL info on a public forum. Thanks. 1
Tacenda Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: Tacenda, can you edit your post to remove USU78's phone number, please? We've already been in contact, and I don't want him to have to bother with any of the adverse consequences that might result from sharing personal IRL info on a public forum. Thanks. I would if I could, being on limited I can't edit very far out before it becomes a quote only function. I hope mods see this and will help me out. Get better Ken, I have days, months, years, like that but very mild cases. I've wanted to get some help, still need to find the right person. Good luck! Edited February 5, 2020 by Tacenda
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 Mormon (Latter-day Saint) Bishop’s, are allowed, and encouraged or “required” to report sexual crimes against children (for sure) or against others, including other types of crimes, IF there is an immediate danger. Catholic Priest, from what I understand, are not allowed to break the “seal of the confessional”, or am I mistaken? Also, I am not sure how such a law can be enforced, if the Priest is unwilling to do so, especially since all other confessions surrounding it are also secret. Now that the new handbook is out, what does it have to say?
Recommended Posts